BAUT Review for Parents and Teachers

[Jens]

But - and that is a big but, carefully overlooked in such discussions - that null hypothesis is not a science fact! To declare it as such is common practice here at BAUT and that is the intellectual dishonesty I am talking about.

You know, if you know how to use the poll function, you could try to set up a poll and ask a question like, "do you think the absence of evidence if proof of non-existence." I doubt that anybody would reply in the affirmative. Now, people might give the impression that they are taking that position, by making fun of statements that are not proven false but which seem fairly hard to believe, but I don't think anybody really believes that a null hypothesis is a fact in general terms.

I certainly don't.

[AdamL]

First, have you read my post here and if so, what are your thoughts about it?

Yes. You use the terms "more likely explanation" or "most probable explanation" (corrected "probably" in last quote) but what are they based on?
Can you show mathematically what the probability of those explanations are? If not, then they must necessarily be personal opinions.

How do think questions such as "was that light I saw last night in the sky an alien spaceship" supposed to be answered by the scientific method? Are all possible answers to that question just opinion and of equal probability and value?

With honesty. And in the absence of evidence either way, all you can say (as a scientist in any official capacity) is: "We don't know."
The same goes for questions about ghosts, fairies and, heck, even the easter bunny!
Whatever your personal opinions may be (and how many other people share that opinion is irrelevant) and however ludicrous the idea of ghosts for example may appear to you, as a scientist really all you can say is, again: "We don't know."

[Gillianren]

How do you know that? I am calling the average BAUT member closed-minded. DO you know what my stance is on evidence-based reasoning? Or EDG's? Or of any other who spoke out in favor of the closed-mindedness of BAUT?

Long personal experience? We have had numerous people tell us that they resent being asked for evidence to support their stances and then call us closed-minded for insisting on such. In point of fact, that's what we're asking for here. Evidence.

What is the assessment that that is "less probable" based on?
That is a personal opinion (one that I happen to agree with by the way) but nothing more.

This is the kind of thing I'm talking about. We have evidence that all sorts of natural phenomena exist. We have evidence that other, non-natural things in the sky exist. We have evidence that both are continually misinterpreted as alien spacecraft. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that, in cases where something is unidentifiable, there's a chance that it's just more of the same but without enough information available to make a firm determination. On the other hand, no one knows enough about any possible alien spacecraft to make any kind of determination of what pattern of behaviour they'd follow. Since we do not and cannot know that, we also cannot say something is likely to be that thing without any known characteristics.

Here at BAUT that personal opinion is usually not stated as such. It is declared as a fact of science. On that I agree with MicVR: that is not scientifically honest. It is a very misleading statement, especially for young kids.

No, it isn't. It's integral to how science works. We know the simple explanations are often the correct ones. It happens all the time. Ergo, it's not unreasonable to assume that it's happening again. How do you go about determining what the odds are that it's alien spacecraft if you have no evidence of what alien spacecraft are actually like?

[Van Rijn]

You know, if you know how to use the poll function, you could try to set up a poll and ask a question like, "do you think the absence of evidence if proof of non-existence." I doubt that anybody would reply in the affirmative. Now, people might give the impression that they are taking that position, by making fun of statements that are not proven false but which seem fairly hard to believe, but I don't think anybody really believes that a null hypothesis is a fact in general terms.

I certainly don't.

I was thinking of a poll as well. Most folks aren't going to include in every post, "lack of evidence doesn't prove non-existence" or when discussing mainstream arguments, say "this is what is best supported by theory and observation, but of course there are other possibilities." These are implied. They are also said, on occasion, but not regularly posting them does not indicate someone intends their post to be read as an absolute declaration of truth.

That isn't how science works.

[AdamL]

How do you go about determining what the odds are that it's alien spacecraft if you have no evidence of what alien spacecraft are actually like?

My point exactly. You can not determine the odds! And that's where it must end. The rest is personal speculation (on both sides).

As Ludwig Wittgenstein said: "Worüber man nicht reden kann, darüber muss man schweigen."
I couldn't find an English translation right now, so here goes my flawed attempt: "That of which you cannot speak, (about that) you have to remain silent", and in extension: when asked, you can only say: "We do not know.".

[NickW]

Maybe I have been hanging around here to much, but how is it that people who come here, stating they have a background in science (teachers, professors, students) seem to have a lack of understanding that science works through evidence. I have no science training at all, unless you count the general science, biology, and chemistry they taught in high school in the 90's training (I think not), but I still think I have a grasp on science enough to know that feelings and lack of evidence stand in the way of science, not push it forward.

[Jens]

Maybe I have been hanging around here to much, but how is it that people who come here, stating they have a background in science (teachers, professors, students) seem to have a lack of understanding that science works through evidence. I have no science training at all, unless you count the general science, biology, and chemistry they taught in high school in the 90's training (I think not), but I still think I have a grasp on science enough to know that feelings and lack of evidence stand in the way of science, not push it forward.

I don't know, isn't part of the problem the simple fact that scientists are human beings and have feelings that sometimes get in the way of science? I don't know if this is a really appropriate example, but Einstein apparently was reluctant to accept quantum mechanics because it went against his intuition of how the world should be. So it's not necessarily true that the people you are talking about don't know. It may be that other things get in the way.

[NickW]

So it's not necessarily true that the people you are talking about don't know. It may be that other things get in the way.

I will concede that point. To make more sense of my comment though, the people that I am talking about are trained, or are being trained in science. That means they should know when they are instilling bias into what they are saying. I do understand that we are all humans, but my post was more to point out how can some call "asking for evidence", close-minded. It really makes no sense to me.

[NickW]

Also to add:

I think the "bad attitude" comments from proponents in the CT/ATM fora are mostly because they are not used to being for evidence. They talk to their friends about it, throw out some techo-babble, sound all smart and their acquaintances believe what they are saying. There is a lack of criticism there that those people get here, and it is probably completely unexpected.

[AdamL]

... my post was more to point out how can some call "asking for evidence", close-minded. It really makes no sense to me.

Who in this thread did call anybody simply asking for evidence closed-minded?
Maybe it is my limited understanding of the English language, but I did not see that anywhere in this thread.

What has been called closed-minded (and as far as I am concerned, rightly so) is to discard a possibility, lacking any evidence one way or the other. That is closed-minded!
And the often cited probability that some assign to certain statements is nothing but a personal opinion, unless it is a mathematically deduced probability, which in almost all cases it is not because we just don't know enough.
You may think that scientists have better ways of determining the probability of certain events, but upon closer examination not enough facts are known to base any probability on!

Not too long ago, before the discovery of extremophiles, almost all scientists would have given you all kinds of very low (if not zero) probabilities of the likelihood of finding life on Europa (Jupiter's moon) for example.
Today, after we have learned a lot more about life on Earth and how resilient it can be, those probabilities look very different.

Have we really not learned that lesson?? Have we really not learned to be much more cautious when downright discarding possibilities because they don't fit into our limited view of the world?
And I ask with MicVR and others: Where is the humility that inevitably must result from that realization? It seems to be almost completely absent here at BAUT, and that absence can rightly be called "closed-minded".

[Tensor]

I very much agree with Jim on this observations.

I agree with him also, but I don't really think you do. From his post #117:

Again as an observer I couldn’t see what his/her point was. They seemed to be trying to push buttons of members to bring out certain behaviors.

When I saw your post #86 I thought “this is going to be interesting” because if they were looking for a rational discussion here was their chance. When they didn’t reply I began to think this person was just stirring the pot.

I tend to agree with CJSF that being penalized was what they were looking for. Whatever their reason was they were cutting a fine line seemly to bring out certain behaviors in the members here. And they pretty much succeeded.

You still agree with orionjim's observations, or only those that you think agree with your position?

I have read the Michio Kaku thread very carefully and I find the positions MicVR took there very considered, well-worded and polite. "Pseudo-Skeptic" is certainly not name-calling where I come from,

Well, think of what is considered name calling in your area of the world. If someone called you that name and you told them please don't use it, but they continued to call you that. Would you consider it impolite?

I became an active member today (in order to participate in this thread) but I have browsed this forum and read a good amount of threads over the last months. My observations largely met what MicVR reported in his first statement.

MicVR was asked for specific examples and didn't provide any. Perhaps you can point them out.

Did anybody take notice that he was not the only one reporting the same issues? EDG, inflector, peterf and orionjim (some of them longterm members with several hundred posts) confirmed at least some of his observation,

Did you actually read all of orionjim's posts? Did you happen to notice that peterf was banned because he didn't follow the rules and did personal attacks. Go to forum feedback, it has plenty of threads started by ATM proponents who don't like the fact that the rules require them to answer questions.

especially the closed-mindedness (i think only orionjim did not mention that term) of this forum and the general tone. And I agree with that assessment as well.

Again, anything specific?

The most common response was how tired BAUT members are of this term and that it - from their perspective - simply meant that someone does not agree with them.

No, usually it means someone doesn't want to provide us the evidence we've asked for. There have been, IIRC, two ATM threads where the person was fully prepared to discuss their idea, answer questions and provide the math. We couldn't shoot those down and parted friends, without being called closed-minded. There was several threads in ATM that lead to someone writing papers that ended up in peer reviewed journals. Is BAUT perfect? No. Is it better than anything else out there on the web? About the only thing on par is Physics Forums.

Nobody seems to even consider that maybe there is a lot more to it than that, since it seems to be a common characterization of BAUT members.

Usually by those who's work has been shown to be completely wrong. They resent having to provide the evidence (usually the math). That is what they usually mean by closed-minded. As someone who doing work in math, I suggest you look over some of the threads in ATM and actually look at the proposals put forward by some of the posters there.

Then MicVR got suspended. I agree with orionjim when he said that that pretty much proved the points MicVR was making.

Do you also agree with orionjim that he was looking to get suspended?

I did not find ANYTHING in the post that led to his suspension offensive. Maybe it was the term "kindergarten reasoning"?

From MicVR post:

In the last part of this thread you had to witness the primitive and uninformed kindergarten reasoning so often found around here

It would seem that what the average BAUT member (including a good number of the moderators) lacks in humbleness and basic human tolerance they make more than up with aggression, ignorance and a generally mean spirit.

So, you wouldn't mind being called primitive, uninformed, ignorant, and mean spirited? Well, I do, even in your context, since you didn't identify what you mean by average. I could find a few more examples for you if you want.

I think it was a VERY polite term, given the onslaught of ridicule and intentional misrepresentation of his statements.

Specific examples of which are....?

I think MicVR's suspension but even more so the general behavior and ridicule he and others who dared to agree with him had to endure in this thread (and others) VERY MUCH proves the points of the opening statement.

Again, specific examples?

[captain swoop]

AdamL. Welcome to BAUT. Please take some time to read the Rules for Posting to the Board. They are linked at the bottom of this post.
Thank You

[Strange]

Maybe it was the term "kindergarten reasoning"? I think it was a VERY polite term, given the onslaught of ridicule and intentional misrepresentation of his statements.

Being "closed-minded" (and the person accused of "kindergaten reasoning") I am going to have to ask for some evidence. Can you show (quote) where I (or anyone else) ridiculed or misrepresented his statements? If anything, MicVR is the one who misrepresented my argument and then got upset about being accused of something completely different. This has happened a couple of times but I am still willing to assume it was not a deliberate way of avoiding answering the question and ineventing a slight.

BTW I am not offended or upset by this sort of accusation or misrepresentation of my views by an unknown person on the Internet. I am, however, slightly frustrated by MicVR's refusal to answer my question by (deliberately?) misunderstading it and then being offended by his own misinterpretation....

[Gillianren]

My point exactly. You can not determine the odds! And that's where it must end. The rest is personal speculation (on both sides).

Have you heard of Occam's Razor?

As Ludwig Wittgenstein said: "Worüber man nicht reden kann, darüber muss man schweigen."
I couldn't find an English translation right now, so here goes my flawed attempt: "That of which you cannot speak, (about that) you have to remain silent", and in extension: when asked, you can only say: "We do not know.".

No; you may say, "We don't know, but here's what we do." And here, in this case, is what we do--we know that the unidentified has been shown, using the statistics provided, to be something mundane 95% of the time. That means that the mundane is common. We have no evidence which suggests that the extreme suggestion is even possible; indeed, we have strong evidence which suggests it isn't. Therefore, given what has been shown to be the case, it is far more likely to be the mundane than the extraordinary. To put it in medical parlance, when you see hoofprints, look for horses, not unicorns.

[Van Rijn]

Who in this thread did call anybody simply asking for evidence closed-minded?

See the opening post of the thread:

The language here is kept clean here when it comes to profanity and swear words - the moderators see to that.
However, the general tone expressed by many (probably the majority of) BAUTians is very closed-minded, garnered with hostility, impoliteness and ridicule.

(emphasis added). If you had been following the board (as MicVR claims to have done), you would see that asking for evidence is a very common thing here.

Maybe it is my limited understanding of the English language, but I did not see that anywhere in this thread.

I was also wondering if there might be a language issue. It's possible that you and MicVR have different concepts in mind when using some words, which might result in different perceptions of these discussions.

What has been called closed-minded (and as far as I am concerned, rightly so) is to discard a possibility, lacking any evidence one way or the other. That is closed-minded!
[snip]
Have we really not learned that lesson?? Have we really not learned to be much more cautious when downright discarding possibilities because they don't fit into our limited view of the world?
And I ask with MicVR and others: Where is the humility that inevitably must result from that realization? It seems to be almost completely absent here at BAUT, and that absence can rightly be called "closed-minded".

I've followed this board for a long time. My experience is that very few here will discard a possibility out of hand. Rather, most will ask for supporting evidence, as previously noted. So, I'm not sure what the issue is.

[Moose]

I'll point out, briefly, that my Easter Bunny example was chosen specifically because I was confident MicVR didn't believe in it. I chose it specifically because it demonstrates the contrast between the defense of a cherished belief and someone else's belief for which the evidence for either share characteristics.

MicVR doesn't buy the Easter Bunny because the claim is implausible on its face (mammals don't lay eggs, let alone chocolate ones), and there's no reliable evidence to challenge that implausibility. I don't buy his UFOs because the claim is implausible on its face (mostly on engineering/physics grounds), and there's no reliable evidence to challenge that implausibility.

[Canis Lupus]

I'll point out, briefly, that my Easter Bunny example was chosen specifically because I was confident MicVR didn't believe in it. I chose it specifically because it demonstrates the contrast between the defense of a cherished belief and someone else's belief for which the evidence for either share characteristics.

MicVR doesn't buy the Easter Bunny because the claim is implausible on its face (mammals don't lay eggs, let alone chocolate ones), and there's no reliable evidence to challenge that implausibility. I don't buy his UFOs because the claim is implausible on its face (mostly on engineering/physics grounds), and there's no reliable evidence to challenge that implausibility.

But were you thinking of the children with your Easter Bunny example? :surprised

[HenrikOlsen]

Yes. You use the terms "more likely explanation" or "most probable explanation" (corrected "probably" in last quote) but what are they based on?
Can you show mathematically what the probability of those explanations are? If not, then they must necessarily be personal opinions.

Every single case where there was enough evidence to make a determination has been shown to have mundane explanations, that's 100% of the cases where the result is known, out of tens if not hundreds of thousands of cases.
2-15% of the cases (depending on who you ask and how you define "cases") do not have enough evidence to determine the explanation.
The complete absence of any case showing non-mundane explanations actually give a strong confidence that a mundane explanation is also true for the remaining cases where there isn't enough evidence to determine which it is.
Try reading up on Bayesian inference.

[grant hutchison]

Not too long ago, before the discovery of extremophiles, almost all scientists would have given you all kinds of very low (if not zero) probabilities of the likelihood of finding life on Europa (Jupiter's moon) for example.
Today, after we have learned a lot more about life on Earth and how resilient it can be, those probabilities look very different.

Have we really not learned that lesson?? Have we really not learned to be much more cautious when downright discarding possibilities because they don't fit into our limited view of the world?

And I ask with MicVR and others: Where is the humility that inevitably must result from that realization? It seems to be almost completely absent here at BAUT, and that absence can rightly be called "closed-minded".

But science isn't about hedging your current bets so that, whatever happens in the long run, you can claim to have not been wrong. It's about building useful models of the world according to our current understanding. Can a particular hypothesis be used to make useful and testable predictions about how the Universe will behave? If that hypothesis requires a large number of proliferated entities, or if it can't make testable predictions, it's hogwash, in strictly scientific terms. It may turn out to be correct in the light of new evidence, but it still was hogwash when originally proposed on insufficient grounds.
I don't really buy your example of Europa, but one could point to the original theory of Continental Drift. That turned out to be true (in the modified form of plate tectonics), but it was a useless hypothesis when first proposed, because it lacked a clear mechanism. It could make no testable predictions, and required some ill-defined new entity to allow continents to move. It provided no guidance on where to look for evidence or mechanism. It wasn't science. It became science once evidence and mechanism turned up in the course of other endeavours: and it was then adopted in the blink of an eye.
Forgive me, but the "open minded" attitude you share with MicVR simply reflects a profound misunderstanding of what science is and does.

Grant Hutchison

[Nereid]

I'll point out, briefly, that my Easter Bunny example was chosen specifically because I was confident MicVR didn't believe in it. I chose it specifically because it demonstrates the contrast between the defense of a cherished belief and someone else's belief for which the evidence for either share characteristics.

MicVR doesn't buy the Easter Bunny because the claim is implausible on its face (mammals don't lay eggs, let alone chocolate ones), and there's no reliable evidence to challenge that implausibility. I don't buy his UFOs because the claim is implausible on its face (mostly on engineering/physics grounds), and there's no reliable evidence to challenge that implausibility.

mammals don't lay eggs, let alone chocolate ones

The echidna (spiny ant-eater) and platypus are mammals, and they lay eggs (albeit not chocolate ones).

There are, no doubt, many extinct species of mammal which laid eggs, though again not chocolate ones.

Question for MicVR, EDG, and AdamL: in what way, if any, is my comment relevant to this thread?

[Nereid]

There's an aspect of the claim that scientists must always be agnostic* which has not, AFACS, been mentioned yet, one that goes to the heart of science.

Will the Sun rise tomorrow? Will it shine in a minute's time from now? Will cadmium sulphide be highly insoluble (in water, at 20C, and 1 atm) tomorrow? Will it be highly insoluble in a minute's time from now? Will my gold coin turn into a hassium one tomorrow? In a minute's time from now? Will the Moon turn into billions of bowls of petunias tomorrow? Will the president of the EU find himself on the surface of Charon one second from now?

And so on.

One of the foundations of modern science - since the ~time of Newton - is the principle of induction.

The principle of perpetual agnosticism, as advocated by some*, in this thread, seems to be in direct contradiction to the principle of induction, and so is not within the domain of science.

Comments?

I'm particularly interested to hear from MicVR, EDG, or AdamL on this.

* apologies if I have misstated the claim; clarifications welcome

[Paul Beardsley]

In the last post (169) Grant does an excellent job of spelling out the position, but I find it incredible that there is a need for this.

As a teacher, I am very aware of the unfortunate necessity for some teachers to "teach to the exam". I wonder if this is happening in an extreme way in... certain parts of the world. Students are urged to study a particular topic because it's likely to be in the exam, but fundamental ideas - such as the importance of evidence - are being missed out altogether.

I have an image in my mind of a flying saucer from a distant star landing in my local park. Hundreds of scientists, including some from BAUT, flock to get a closer look; all have looks of delight on their faces.

And a bunch of UFOlogists will be looking at the scientists in disgust, saying, "It's all very well you accepting the existence of visitors from outer space now; but it's a bit hypocritical given that you didn't believe before."

Numerous BAUTers (and others) will reply, "But we have evidence now. If you recall, we asked you time and time again to present some evidence, and you never did."

The UFOlogists will ignore this, and look smug because they, unlike Doubting Thomas, believed before there was any evidence.

Anyway, I've spent enough time trying to communicate with people who equate a demand for evidence with closed-mindedness. Life is too short.

[Nereid]

MicVR has said he's a theoretical physicist, and AdamL a mathematician (or studying to become one).

Perhaps the views they have expressed, in relation to science, reflect an approach somewhat limited to these fields?

I mean, astronomers (and biologists, geologists, etc) who observe, and physicists (and chemists, and biologists, etc) who experiment need to decide what to observe (and how, and how often, etc), or what experiment to design, run, etc. Are they agnostic to all possibilities when they go about making these sorts of decisions? I don't think so; as has been noted, several times, their work is often framed in terms of testable hypotheses, with essential no consideration given to, um, way out ideas.

At the practical level of actually doing science - at least in these fields - does the principle of perpetual agnosticism have any relevance?

[Paul Beardsley]

There's an aspect of the claim that scientists must always be agnostic* which has not, AFACS, been mentioned yet, one that goes to the heart of science.

Prior to this thread (or perhaps the Michio Kaku one) I'd never seen the term "agnostic" used in this way. My feeling is that it's useless at best; I picture a court room where no verdict can be reached on a murder charge because you can never rule out the possibility that the murder weapon was beamed into the accused's bedroom by advanced aliens, who also used a remote neuron controller which made him confess in front of a hundred witnesses.

No, there is such a thing as "reasonable doubt", and there is also the term "presume" which means to chose a sensible default assumption which you keep to unless fresh information gives you good cause to revise it.

So yes, we presume the sun will rise tomorrow unless we have good reason to think it will change its behaviour for some reason (or the Earth stops turning - and again, we can presume it won't).

[Swift]

Prior to this thread (or perhaps the Michio Kaku one) I'd never seen the term "agnostic" used in this way. My feeling is that it's useless at best; I picture a court room where no verdict can be reached on a murder charge because you can never rule out the possibility that the murder weapon was beamed into the accused's bedroom by advanced aliens, who also used a remote neuron controller which made him confess in front of a hundred witnesses.

As I commented already in this term, I dislike using the term "agnostic" in this context. Agnosticism is a belief system, just as atheism or any particular religious belief. I think the point that many of us are trying to make is that science is not a belief system, it is based on evidence. I think using the term "agnostic" is confusing, perhaps, deliberately so.

[Paul Beardsley]

As I commented already in this term, I dislike using the term "agnostic" in this context. Agnosticism is a belief system, just as atheism or any particular religious belief. I think the point that many of us are trying to make is that science is not a belief system, it is based on evidence. I think using the term "agnostic" is confusing, perhaps, deliberately so.

I don't want to get sidetracked - particularly onto THAT topic - but atheism is not a belief system, it's rejection of belief.

Otherwise I agree with your post.

[Moose]

mammals don't lay eggs, let alone chocolate ones

The echidna (spiny ant-eater) and platypus are mammals, and they lay eggs (albeit not chocolate ones).

Fair enough.

[Nereid]

If we focus on the concept, and downplay the word(s) used to describe it ... MicVR posited* that it is a key, if not central, feature of science all possibilities are always open, whether it be dark energy is a generalised Chaplygin gas, cadmium sulphide will become as soluble as sodium chloride (in water, etc) at noon tomorrow, some UFOs are alien visitations, or the Moon will turn into a billion bowls of tulips within the next 10 seconds (etc).

Further, MicVR asserted* that those who do not consider all such possibilities open are "closed minded"^.

One of the points I have made is that there is an inconsistency, a contradiction between this claim and a very long-established principle at the heart of science (the principle of induction).

If so, then all scientists must, almost by definition, be closed-minded; indeed, I find it difficult to understand how MicVR can, logically, claim to be a scientist and also hold this view of the nature of science.

I am curious to hear from MicVR (and EDG and AdamL) concerning this.

* and I think EDG and AdamL agreed with this, though I may be mistaken (clarification welcome).
^ I think; I may have re-stated the assertion somewhat incorrectly (clarification welcome).

[Grey]

The echidna (spiny ant-eater) and platypus are mammals, and they lay eggs (albeit not chocolate ones).

Hmm. Maybe we should change our traditions and have an Easter Platypus instead. Actually, I think my kids might like that.

[Kaptain K]

AFAIK, The Easter bunny was not said to lay eggs, just deliver them!